Search Tracking Purports To Show Effect of Racism On '08 Election

Hugh Pickens writes "Garance Franke-Ruta writes about a new study of racially charged search terms on Google that aims to predict the effects of the Bradley effect, a theory proposed to explain observed discrepancies between voter opinion polls and election outcomes in some U.S. elections where a white candidate and a non-white candidate run against each other. 'How much we are under-representing people who are intolerant and therefore unlikely to vote for Obama is an open question,' says Andrew Kohut, the president of Pew Research Center. 'I suspect not a great deal, but maybe some. And "maybe some" could be crucial in a tight election.' The study found that the percentage of an area's total Google searches from 2004-2007 that included the racially charged search for the word 'n****r' is a is a large and robust negative predictor of Obama's vote share. 'A one standard deviation increase in an area's racially charged search is associated with a 1.5 percentage point decrease in Obama's vote share, controlling for John Kerry's vote share,' writes Stephens-Davidowitz in the study. The results imply that, relative to the most racially tolerant areas in the United States, prejudice cost Obama between 3.1 percentage points and 5.0 percentage points (PDF) of the national popular vote in the 2008 election. This implies racial animus gave Obama's opponent roughly the equivalent of a home-state advantage, country-wide."

Comments

Both Ways

[Bigby]

And how many people voted for Obama because he is black?

Re:Both Ways

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember reading a "vote by race" percentages somewhere.
Most races were pretty even split for obama/mccain, except for one.
Black voters gave 97% of the votes to obama.

Re:Both Ways

[Entropius]

I know white folks who voted for Obama, essentially, because it'd be so progressive to have a black president.

Elections have always had ties to demographics. The fact that the demographic in question in this case was "black" doesn't really change anything -- it just makes people wank about it more.

Re:Both Ways

[ftobin]

I know white folks who voted for Obama, essentially, because it'd be so progressive to have a black president.

Considering these folks are attempting to be "so progressive", it sounds like there is little chance they would vote Republican.

Re:Both Ways

[tnk1]

What they failed to mention is the "Same Party as George W. Bush" disadvantage. Trust me, McCain might have had a built-in advantage, but it was more than overshadowed by the fact he was the Republican candidate who happened to follow Bush. There were people out there who would not have voted for Abraham Lincoln if he was running on the Republican ticket after Bush.

Re:Both Ways

[Desler]

And blacks voted 88% for Kerry, 90+% for Al Gore, and in 1994 around 95% for Clinton. Last I checked they were all white.

Re:Both Ways

[Desler]

So in 1994 when Bill Clinton got around 95% of blacks to vote for him it was because he was black?

Re:Both Ways

[Reverberant]

Every single survey, poll, etc that was on the news at the time had between 96 and 98% of american black voters voting for him. That means they ignored all policy, all politics, all financial plans, all qualifications, all personal history, all things in general he said he'd do, and just for him based on the color of his skin.

What you mean is "96 and 98% of american black voters" voted for the Democrat - the 96% Obama got is consistent with the 90% that Gore got, the 88% Kerry got, the 90% Mondale and Dukakis got, the 94% Johnson got etc.

If blacks were voting overwhelmingly based on race, than you should see overwhelming support for Hermain Cain, Alan Keyes, Ward Connerly, etc. That's not the case.

Re:Both Ways

[crmarvin42]

Not an apples-to-apples comparison. Clinton won by a landslide if i recall correctly. His proportion of just about any demographic category would need to be skewed to the high side in his favor when compared to a much closer race like that of Obama v. McCain. Now, if the proportion of black voters going Democrat in a similarly close presidential election are also in the high 90's then your point would be valid.

Besides, I think the more telling measure of his black support is the record turn out of black voters (15.9 million in '08 vs. 13.8 million in '04 according to Pew, or 65.2% of eligible black voters in '08 v 60.3 in '04) combined with his winning almost every single black vote. According to ABC News most of the 5 million vote increase in 2008 over 2004 is attributable to minority voters (which of course includes blacks), with whom Obama, in particular, and the Democrats, in general, do very well. It becomes even more compelling of an argument when you look at Young Black Voters who's participation jumped from 8% in 2004 to 55% in 2008.

Not that I see anything wrong with it, BTW. Just pointing out a better metric to show his record breaking support from the black community. Voting for someone frequently comes down to ephemeral decisions about a persons character, how likely you would be to have a beer with them, or some other equally vague criteria. That being black made young black voters like him more is no worse than any of the other reasons, and arguably better than the refusal to vote for someone becuase of he is black.

Re:Both Ways

[Beerdood]

To be fair, democrats have been getting the vast majority of the black vote for at least 30 years now, somewhere around 90%. Clinton had the lowest percentage at "only" 83-85%. Sure, we can recognize that some percentage of the black population purely voted for Obama because he is also black, (thereby ignoring policy) - but it's probably around the same percentage of people not voting for him for the exact same reason. 96-98% of black americans didn't "ignore all policy, all politics, all qualifications" etc.. when they voted for Obama, they did because republican policies fuck them over a hell of a lot more than democrat policies (wasn't always this way, but it has been for at least for a few decades now).

In some alternate universe, Hillary Clinton is running against Herman Cain for the 2012 election. Herman Cain is not getting 90%+ of the black vote - doubtful that it would be even be 50%.

Re:Both Ways

[Reverberant]

Following up - another post reminded me about the 2007-2008 Democratic primaries. Hillary Clinton had a significant lead among black voters in the early going. Things started shifting when Bill started running his mouth in South Carolina.

Re:Both Ways

[phantomfive]

In other words, 3% - 5% of blacks voted for Obama because he was black? That would make sense, since it's reasonable to believe some black people are racist too.

The problem I have is this study: it's completely one-sided. It only considers the negative effect his race had on the campaign, whereas it would be just as interesting and important to see the positive effect his race had. For example, he was 'making history' (and he did). Would you rather vote for the guy making history, or the guy trying to stop history?

The thing I like about the study is it's an original and interesting approach to solving the problem. Maybe it can be refined, but I like the idea.

Re:Both Ways

[Hatta]

Abraham Lincoln destroyed what was left of the Jeffersonian model of the United States and left us with strict federalism. His complete disregard for the Constitution set the stage for the complete disregard that we see today. He was the first president to suspend Habeas Corpus, for instance.

Slavery was bad, but look at where we find ourselves today. We have more black men in shackles today than we did at the time of the Civil War. We gave up state sovereignty for...essentially nothing. And now any state that thinks it might be better off on its own doesn't have that option. That's not freedom.

Abraham Lincoln was the worst thing to happen to the US since Alexander Hamilton.

Re:Both Ways

[cayenne8]

But would you vote for an ignorant Republican and throw the people to the wolves?

Well, no...I'd not vote an 'ignorant' Republican...but from what I've seen, I don't think Romney has shown himself to be an ignorant person.

At the very least, he seems to have much more on the ball than, say...Joe Biden, who can't seem to keep his foot out of his mouth...and is only one heart attack away from the presidency.

Obama is a center-right president, which of course upsets both the left and the extreme-insane-fallen-off-the-map-right. There's a real danger that we could wind up with wingnut throwbacks in charge just because modern people aren't quite satisfied with Obama.

I have to heartily disagree with you in my view of Obama. Perhaps you are describing him from a European point of view, not the US view on liberal vs conservative.

I think Obama is one of the most left leaning, divisive and ideological people I've ever seen in power in the US, much less in the presidency. I think he is so very stuck to his ideals based agenda, that he cannot truly compromise or even see when things he tries and supports just do not work. I think he is so bent on going with fundamentally changing the US, its principals...etc...that he wants to keep pushing it even to the detriment of our country and its people.

I think he believes he is so right, and that the US's approach for all these years is so fundamentally wrong..that he cannot step back, and see how he has been hurting the country.

Is he a 'bad' guy? No. I think he's likely an amiable person, and I'd have a beer with him too. I just think he makes for a horrible president, and I'm pretty much opposed to 99% of what he supports and his vision for the US.

Sure, he might be somewhere near the 'center' as you described in Europe...which to many Americans as being far off the left side of the liberal scale, it prevents acurate readings.

In the US, Obama's about the most left leaning, liberal, progressive person we've ever seen rise to such a high office. Many people seem to be shocked....but he was honest about it, and in his writings, actions and own words...he has shown what he stands for, but people didn't see it during election time.

I think Hope and Change, rock-stardom and being the first black president overshadowed the election so much, that no one paid attention to his really political ambitons, till after the hoopla died down, and we saw him in action in office.

Re:Both Ways

[lister king of smeg]

both sides have nut jobs you just don't like the republican ones more that you don't like the democrats ones so you vilify them. unfortunately under the current two party system the most whacked out nut-jobs are generally the one elected on both sides and then we wonder why the country is headed to hell.
four years ago it was those war mongering right wing nut jobs killing th economy now it is the left wing socialist commies giving away all of the money they can ruining our economy. really what we need is a third party who can sit in the middle and say your both nucking futs and come up with a less insane perhaps even a workable solution but as soon as a third party starts up it is killed by the other two or is even more insane than the other two we already have and is shunned by the rest of the country

Re:Both Ways

[SuricouRaven]

Palin's purpose wasn't to win voters, it was to energise the base. The social conservatives supported McCain before, but only on the grounds that he wasn't a democrat. He wasn't one of them, and they knew it. He'd get their votes, but lackluster support doesn't bring donations, or efforts to drive supporters to the polls, or grassroots campaigning. So he picked someone who was very much one of them as VP - an outspoken, open Christian with intense and proven pro-life views and a proudly displayed dislike of intellectuallism. It worked, winning over their support, he just underestimated how much she would terrify more moderate voters.

Re:Both Ways

[SpasticWeasel]

Please let me say that you have a very appropriate sig.

Re:Both Ways

[tbannist]

I think Obama is one of the most left leaning, divisive and ideological people I've ever seen in power in the US, much less in the presidency. I think he is so very stuck to his ideals based agenda, that he cannot truly compromise or even see when things he tries and supports just do not work. I think he is so bent on going with fundamentally changing the US, its principals...etc...that he wants to keep pushing it even to the detriment of our country and its people.

What has Obama done that's "left-wing"? "Obama's health care plan" is essentially the same as the one implement by Mitt Romney and suggested nationally by Bob Dole. He rescued the auto-sector, and they needed a rescue because banks were refusing to lend money to them at any price. Frankly, I suspect most Republicans would have done the same thing. Canada's conservative government did.

In the US, Obama's about the most left leaning, liberal, progressive person we've ever seen rise to such a high office. Many people seem to be shocked....but he was honest about it, and in his writings, actions and own words...he has shown what he stands for, but people didn't see it during election time.

Really? Obama is more "left leaning, liberal, progressive" than Franklin D. Roosevelt? Are you really sure you're not just repeating what you heard on Fox News?

Re:Both Ways

[cayenne8]

Really? Obama is more "left leaning, liberal, progressive" than Franklin D. Roosevelt

In my humble opinion?

Yes.

With what I've read about Obama, his past (what we can find of it)...his education, his writings (that self narrated book is quite revealing)...and his actions in offices (senator, president)....I do believe he is way out on the left (US version), and in many ways, that he has fundamental differences with what the US has been, what it stands for and how it operates.

I shudder to think what he and his administration would try for in a 2nd term, unencumbered with the need for re-election. I think they would unleash an unprecedented attempt at moving their far left agenda.

No, not just fox news...I find it best to try to get the news from as many sources as possible, and make up ones own mind. So far, this is my opinion on the fella and his movement.

Re:Both Ways

[cayenne8]

You're the epitome of ignorant American. You do your country a deep disservice. I am truly sad for you all.

Why? Because I don't want to see the US set up and run like countries in the EU?

I'm seeing the problems in Greece, France, Spain...etc...and frankly, I'm not thrilled with what I see. At some point, you run out of other peoples' money to spend, and you get the problems we're seeing in parts of Europe.

I see Obama and his admin, wanting to set us further down the path towards emulating the EU way of life, and that's not what I want for my country.

Counterbalance of vote for race

[Mean Variance]

tl;dr, but it wouldn't be surprising that someone would vote against a candidate because of his/her race, gender, religion, etc.

On the flipside, how many votes are FOR the candidate because of his race. Does one cancel out the other?

And in the greater picture, how many votes for one candidate are purely superficial lacking perspective or insight into his or her take on policies, issues, and other big picture items.

I feel this kind of study, whether intended or not, has the effect of being purely inflammatory.

Nice!

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

prejudice cost Obama between 3.1 percentage points and 5.0 percentage points

Assuming that it's correct* -- good! This is excellent! When you look at where we were 20, 30, 40 years ago... 3-5% of votes being lost due to prejudice is negligable - in any study of a large population it's within the friggin margin of error

So - good job, America. We've come a long way.

* that said, the methodology seems fairly questionable, and I don't have any confidence in the accuracy of this measurement.

Looking at it from a different angle

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Considering Obama carried 95%+ of the black vote, I wonder why nobody's bothered to do a study to see how many votes racial intolerance cost McCain. Why is it considered perfectly acceptable to charge one side of the equation with racial intolerance but totally unacceptable to even *consider* looking at the other side for similar -- perhaps even more egregious -- motivations?

And before anyone decides to accuse me of being a shill for McCain, the GOP, or narrow-minded bigots with a racial chip on their shoulder, I thought McCain was a crap candidate and voted Libertarian.

Re:Looking at it from a different angle

[Your.Master]

The study included that. Click the pdf link.

You can separate that out three ways:

- Not black, not white: population size is not significant relative to these other effects.
- Black people: supported Obama more than previous presidents, eg. John Kerry. You had 89% voting for John Kerry, so 96% for Obama (plus somewhat higher voter turnout) is not an overwhelming increase when there's far fewer black voters than white voters in the first place. Especially when Obama actually won overall when Kerry lost (implying he was probably more popular overall.
- White people: a bit harder to suss out people who might have voted for Obama because he's black, but would not have just voted for any democrat anyway, but little evidence that white people try to hide that motivation.

Re:Looking at it from a different angle

[radtea]

Considering Obama carried 95%+ of the black vote, I wonder why nobody's bothered to do a study to see how many votes racial intolerance cost McCain.

You're about the 10th person to repeat this idiotic canard in this thread and the answer is still the same as it was when the first person posted it far, far, above: 95% of black voters supported Bill Clinton. 85 - 95% of black voters have supported Democratic presidential candidates for decades.

Are you will wondering? Are your racist fellow travelers who will no-doubt go on to repeat your silly question another dozen times on this story still wondering?

It is profoundly sad that so many Americans are so ignorant of a common voting pattern in their society that has persisted for decades, and so proud of their ignorance that they repeatedly trumpet it on popular websites like /.

Re:Looking at it from a different angle

[artor3]

Black people always overwhelmingly vote for the Democratic candidate. Might have something to do with Republicans openly pandering to racists every since the inception of their Southern Strategy. They made a conscious decision to give up on the black vote in order to get the racist vote, and it has worked extremely well for them.

Re:Newsflash: Stupid people think color matters

[Desler]

It is overrated snce you're repeating a ridiculous line claiming blacks only voted based on race which is silly. In 2004, 88% of blacks voted for white guy John Kerry and more than 90% voted for white guy Al Gore and nearly 95% for Bill Clinton. So, yes, while the jump for Obama is noted, it's not that much bigger when you look historically. It's not as if a large proportion were gping to vote for McCain regardless. So, it's much more likely that the vast majority vote based on pltical affiliation not race when you look at he last couple f elections.

Re:So what?

[cayenne8]

If the constitution forbids race-based prejudice, doesn't it also forbid race-based voting choice?

No, the consitution does not forbid any such thing.

In the US, you are free to believe as you please..whatever you want to be prejuiced about, or open minded about, you are free to believe that, and yes, you ARE free to speak your mind on it (so far).

So, no, there is no barrier or law or rule against voting based on race, you can vote your will as you please.

We do have laws that forbid discrimination from hiring, or barring entry or commerce with someone based on race, sex, religion....but that has nothing to do with voting. To do that...you'd have to invent a functional and accurate thought police force.

wow, gg racist slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

I always thought there was a lot of intelligent people on slashdot... yet everytime there is a race based post immediately there are a bunch of racists posts that get modded way up when they should be troll.

Right now I see three big posts about "if 95% of black people voted for obama, how is that not racist" which is bullshit.

RTFA! It says he got a 1% bounce from being voting for him because of his race. Look at the past demographic breakdowns, 95% of the african american votes go to democrats even when they are white! So there was not change.

Re:So what?

[pezpunk]

the constitution guarantees the right of people to hold racist opinions, but it does not protect them from being judged or called out for their ignorance.

Re:Why is this on Slashdot?

[dgun]

Not necessarily. Blacks tend to support Democrats in national elections. There may have been an assumption that because Obama was black and a Democrat he would represent the interests of black Americans better, but I wouldn’t call that racism. Had Obama ran as a Republican would he have got the same support? Did Herman Cain have a strong following among black people? It is amazing for me to recall how black people in Alabama supported George Wallace. The last time he served as Governor he got 90% of the black vote. Black voters in Alabama supported Wallace because of the choices they had, Wallace represented their interests more than other candidates (his support of public schools at the top of the list, which are always under attack by certain political forces in the state).

Tea Party racists

[RJBeery]

And yet the Republicans and specifically the Tea Partiers were supporters of Herman Cain...ergo the Tea Party and Conservatives are RACISTS because they don't vote for DEMOCRATS...